“People think, increasingly it appears, that we shouldn’t be doing this. Well, let me start by saying we haven’t lost a single American in this war,” McConnell said. “Most of the money that we spend related to Ukraine is actually spent in the US, replenishing weapons, more modern weapons. So it’s actually employing people here and improving our own military for what may lie ahead.”

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/4085063

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 37 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the reasons to support Ukraine are supposed to be noble and not completely self-interested. That's why there is popular support for it. McConnell admitting that it's about funneling money into the military industrial complex, at least in part, ought to make at least some people reconsider their assumptions

[–] Lodra@programming.dev 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ah I see now. It's about the motivations behind the support. Thanks for the insight!

It's actually quite interesting. Personally, I try to remain neutral on politics but I'm definitely fed a left-leaning social media diet. Within that content, the general reason to support Ukraine is still self centered. "Go beat up the Russian military because they're the bad guys and our cost is super low." The nobility of this support feels like a happy side effect. But the really interesting part is that "funneling money into the military industrial complex" simply isn't focused at all. This is the first time I've considered that aspect.

[–] ennemi@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You don't need to go super far left to find convincing arguments against US foreign policy. Noam Chomsky is a mainstream intellectual after all, and he coined the phrase "consent manufacturing".

The idea that the US acts in total self interest should be presumed true in all cases, but that doesn't on its own defeat the idea that its intervention in Ukraine is good. The logical next step is to ask ourselves whether this intervention ever had any chance of changing the outcome of the conflict at all. If it didn't, and most people here would agree that it didn't, then the US' involvement amounts to wartime profiteering at the cost of human lives.

edit: I should also add, there's good reason to believe that NATO expansion is what caused the conflict, and that the west did this in spite of clear and explicit warnings from Russia

[–] Frank@hexbear.net 28 points 1 year ago

neutral on politics

Yeah... About that. There is no neutrality in politics.

Why don't you go look up what the US and Saudi did to Yemen over the last decade and decide how you feel about sitting on that fence.

Go beat up the Russian military because they're the bad guys and our cost is super low.

They're not beating up the Russian military. They're fertilizing the fields of Ukraine that the Rada is going to sell to Blackrock. There's nothing noble about this. NATO pushed and pushed and pushed until the RF took the bait, and now they're bleeding the RF using Ukrainians because they don't give a shit about Ukrainians. Christ this is so frustrating ISTG if people would just read Sun Tzu they'd understand everything and we wouldn't need to have these absurd conversations over and over.